Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

The Intersection of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Davis-Bacon Act Requirements for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors

On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, which is popularly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”).

The BIL is estimated to create an additional 800,000 jobs.  The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) contends that such new jobs will “expand the middle class, revitalize our nation’s transportation, communications and utility systems and build a more resilient, reliable, and environmentally sound future.”  The White House asserts that the BIL will provide protection to “critical labor standards on construction projects,” as a substantial portion of the construction projects included in the BIL will be subject to requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (“DBA” or the “Act”).

While the BIL provides new revenue sources and opportunities for construction projects, federal contractors and subcontractors should ensure that their businesses comply with the DBA’s prevailing wage rates and labor standards requirements.

Scope and Coverage of DBA

In its simplest form, the DBA, enacted in 1931, requires federal contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits to certain construction workers employed on certain federal contracts.  The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) administers and enforces the Act’s requirements on federally funded and assisted construction projects.  The DBA applies to contracts:

  1. Which the Federal Government or the District of Columbia is a party;

  2. For the construction, alteration, or repair, such as painting and decorating, of public buildings and public works to which the Federal Government or the District of Columbia is a party;

  3. Involving the employment of mechanics, laborers, and other workers that engage in manual or physical labor (except for individuals performing administrative, clerical, professional, or management work such as superintendents, project managers, engineers, or office staff); and

  4. Which are in excess of $2,000.

With respect to the DBA applying to federal contracts above $2,000, this value threshold only applies to the initial federal contract.  If the threshold is met, however, then the DBA applies to any lower-tier subcontracts even if the value of the subcontract is less than $2,000.

Requirements for Contractors and Subcontractors

There are various requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors under the DBA, which the United States Supreme Court has described as “a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers.”  The Act was designed to protect construction workers’ wage standards from federal contractors who may base their contract bids on wage rates that are lower than the local wage level.  Under the DBA, federal contractors and subcontractors are required, among other things, to do the following:

  1. Pay covered workers who work on the work site the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits that are listed in the applicable wage determinations, which are provided by the WHD (the prevailing wage rate consists of both the basic hourly rate of pay and any fringe benefits to bona fide third-party plans, which may include medical insurance; life and disability insurance; pensions on retirement or death; compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity; or other bona fide fringe benefits – bona fide fringe benefits, however, do not include payments made by employer contractors or subcontractors that are required by other federal, state, or local laws such as required contributions to unemployment insurance);

  2. Maintain accurate payroll records for employees that must be submitted to the contracting agency on a weekly basis (within seven days following the regular pay date for the particular workweek), which must include the following for covered employees: (i) name; (ii) classification; (iii) daily and weekly hours worked; and (iv) deductions made and actual wages paid (there are additional recordkeeping requirements for federal contractors who employ apprentices or trainees under approved DOL programs);

    • Federal contractors and subcontractors are also required to preserve the payroll records for three years following the completion of the covered work, provide accessibility to the records upon request by the DOL or its representatives, and allow the DOL or its representatives to interview employees during work hours.

    • Federal contractors and subcontractors can use the WHD’s Form WH-347 to satisfy the weekly reporting requirements.

  3. With respect to prime or general contractors, they must ensure that specific contract clauses and the applicable wage determinations are inserted into any lower-tier subcontracts (the contract clauses cover the following: (i) construction wage rate requirements; (ii) withholding of funds; (iii) payrolls and basic records; (iv) apprentices and trainees; (v) compliance with requirements under the Copeland Act; (vi) requirements for subcontracts; (vii) contract termination – debarment; (viii) compliance with construction wage rate requirements and related regulations; (ix) disputes concerning labor standards; and (x) certification of eligibility); and

  4. Post a notice of the prevailing wages as to every classification of worker and an “Employee Rights under the DBA” poster in a prominent location that is easily accessible to the covered workers at the work site.

Practical Consideration in Compliance with DBA

Federal contractors and subcontractors should ensure that covered workers are properly classified for the work such individuals perform and paid in accordance with the prevailing wage rate for their classification.

Employers will often face recordkeeping challenges when they have nonexempt employees who perform covered (manual) work and non-covered (administrative) work in the same workweek.

In such instances, the employer must determine whether the employee is salaried or paid hourly.  If the employee is salaried, the employer must determine whether the employee’s salary is greater than or equal to the prevailing wage rate for the employee’s classification.  If not, the employer contractor is required to increase the employee’s pay for the week the covered work is performed.

Likewise, if the employee is paid hourly, then the employer must ensure the employee’s hourly rate is greater than or equal to the prevailing wage rate for the employee’s classification.

Federal contractors and subcontractors could face various consequences due to their failure to comply with the DBA, ranging from termination of the federal contract and debarment to a contracting agency withholding money due to the contractor to cover back wages due to employees as well as criminal prosecution.  Accordingly, federal contractors and subcontractors should consult with legal counsel to ensure they comply with the various DBA requirements for any covered contracts.

Article By Xavier D. Lightfoot and Devon D. Williams of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more government contracts legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

Health Care Providers on Alert: Two Hospitals Penalized for Continuous Noncompliance with the Hospital Price Transparency Rule

We previously discussed the requirements of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule (“Rule”) on health care providers and health plans, as well as CMS’s proposal to increase penalties for a hospital’s failure to comply with the Rule.  About a year and a half after the Rule became effective, CMS has now imposed its first set of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) on Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee, which have been fined $883,180 and $214,320, respectively.

The Rule requires, in part, hospitals to make public a machine-readable file containing a list of all standard charges for all items and services, such as, e.g., supplies, room and board, and use of the facility, among other items.  See 45 C.F.R. § 180.40(a); id. at § 180.20.  The Rule also requires hospitals to display shoppable services in a consumer-friendly manner.  See id. at § 180.60(d)(2); id. at § 180.60(b).  The goal of these specific requirements, in addition to those set forth in the remainder of the Rule, is to provide consumers with sufficient information about the charges for certain items and services by requiring health care providers and health plans to be publicly transparent about such charges.

Based on CMS’s CMP letters, dated June 7, 2022, Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee were non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.  The chronology of events is important to understand how CMS ended up issuing its CMP letters.

Northside Hospital Atlanta

For Northside Hospital Atlanta:

  • CMS documented the hospital’s non-compliance since March 24, 2021.
  • CMS issued a Warning Letter, dated April 19, 2021, to the hospital and provided it the opportunity to respond and to provide supporting documentation to CMS.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.
  • On September 2, 2021, CMS reviewed the hospital’s website and determined that the non-compliance persisted.
  • On September 30, 2021, CMS issued a Request for Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to the hospital, stating that it was non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.
  • On November 15, 2021, in response to the Request for CAP, the hospital stated that patients could request specific price estimate quotes by calling or emailing Northside Hospital Atlanta, which CMS determined was insufficient in response to its Request for CAP and to comply with the Rule.
  • On December 20, 2021, CMS requested a revised CAP from the hospital.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.
  • On January 11, 2022, CMS conducted a technical assistance call with the hospital, during which the hospital confirmed that it was non-compliant with the Rule and explained that it had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files.
  • On January 24, 2022, CMS, again, requested a revised CAP from the hospital.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.

Based on the foregoing, CMS imposed an $883,180 CMP on Northside Hospital Atlanta, calculated as follows, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90:

  • $36,300
    • $300 per day of non-compliance times 121 days.
    • 121 days represents the number of calendar days during 2021 that Northside Hospital Atlanta was non-compliant with the Rule (September 2, 2021 through December 31, 2021), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(i).

 plus

  • $846,880
    • $10 per bed per day times 536 beds times 158 days.
    • 158 days represents the number of calendar days during 2022 that Northside Hospital Atlanta was non-compliant with the Rule (January 1, 2022 through the date of CMS’s CMP letter, June 7, 2022), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(ii).

Northside Hospital Atlanta has until 60 calendar days from the date of CMS’s CMP letter to pay.  Until the hospital notifies CMS that all non-compliance has been corrected, CMPs will continue to accrue.

Northside Hospital Cherokee

For similar reasons as Northside Hospital Atlanta, Northside Hospital Cherokee was fined $214,320.  CMS noted that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant since April 16, 2021, and notified the hospital by Warning Letter, dated May 18, 2021.  CMS reviewed the hospital’s website on September 9, 2021, and issued a Request for CAP on October 27, 2021—to which the hospital did not respond.  Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, CMS held a technical assistance call on January 11, 2022, during which Northside Hospital Cherokee notified CMS that it had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files.  CMS requested a Request for CAP on January 24, 2022—to which the hospital did not respond.

Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, Northside Hospital Cherokee was penalized $214,320, calculated as follows:

  • $34,200
    • $300 per day of non-compliance times 114 days.
    • 114 days represents the number of calendar days during 2021 that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant with the Rule (September 9, 2021 through December 31, 2021), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(i).

plus

  • $180,120
    • $10 per bed per day times 114 beds times 158 days.
    • 158 days represents the number of calendar days during 2022 that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant with the Rule (January 1, 2022 through the date of CMS’s CMP letter, June 7, 2022), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(ii).

Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, CMS noted that Northside Hospital Cherokee continues to be non-compliant and, thus, CMPs will continue to accrue.

Takeaways

These fines reflect CMS’s willingness to take material enforcement action where the Rule’s regulatory requirements are largely ignored and CMS’s subsequent efforts to obtain compliance are rejected.  Non-compliance carries heavy fines that are calculated, in part, by the number of days of non-compliance and by bed count.  Health care providers should take notice and ensure that they are compliant or, at least, making efforts towards compliance with the Rule’s requirements.  Critically, CMS will not accept a refusal to comply, as reflected in CMS’s responses to Northside Hospital Atlanta’s and Northside Hospital Cherokee’s refusals to submit CAPs.  As noted in CMS’s CMP letters to these providers, CMS is scanning websites and subsequently notifying providers that appear to be non-compliant with the Rule—which are ignored at the provider’s peril.

Article By Edward S. Kornreich and Matthew J. Westbrook of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Heated Debate Surrounds Proposed Federal Privacy Legislation

As we previously reported on the CPW blog, the leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of proposed federal privacy legislation, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), on June 3, 2022. Signaling potential differences amongst key members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) withheld her support. Staking out her own position, Cantwell is reportedly floating an updated version of the Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act (“COPRA”), originally proposed in 2019.

Early Stakeholder Disagreement

As soon as a discussion draft of the ADPPA was published, privacy rights organizations, civil liberty groups, and businesses entered the fray, drawing up sides for and against the bill. The ACLU came out as an early critic of the legislation. In an open letter to Congress sent June 10, the group urged caution, arguing that both the ADPPA and COPRA contain “very problematic provisions.” According to the group, more time is required to develop truly meaningful privacy legislation, as evidenced by “ACLU state affiliates who have been unable to stop harmful or effectively useless state privacy bills from being pushed quickly to enactment with enormous lobbying and advertising support of sectors of the technology industry that resist changing a business model that depends on consumers not having protections against privacy invasions and discrimination.” To avoid this fate, the ACLU urges Congress to “bolster enforcement provisions, including providing a strong private right of action, and allow the states to continue to respond to new technologies and new privacy challenges with state privacy laws.”

On June 13, a trio of trade groups representing some of the largest tech companies sent their open letter to Congress, supporting passage of a federal privacy law, but ultimately opposing the ADPPA. Contrary to the position taken by the ACLU, the industry groups worry that the bill’s inclusion of a private right of action with the potential to recover attorneys’ fees will lead to litigation abuse. The groups took issue with other provisions as well, such as the legislation’s restrictions on the use of data derived from publicly-available sources and the “duty of loyalty” to individuals whose covered data is processed.

Industry groups and consumer protection organizations had the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the ADPPA in a public hearing on June 14. Video of the proceedings and prepared testimony of the witnesses are available here. Two common themes arose in the witnesses’ testimony: (1) general support for federal privacy legislation; and (2) opposition to discrete aspects of the bill. As has been the case for the better part of a decade in which Congress has sought to draft a federal privacy bill, two fundamental issues continue to drive the debate and must be resolved in order for the legislation to become law: the private right of action to enforce the law and preemption of state laws or portions of them. . While civil rights and privacy advocacy groups maintain that the private right of action does not go far enough and that federal privacy legislation should not preempt state law, industry groups argue that a private right of action should not be permitted and that state privacy laws should be broadly preempted.

The Path Forward

The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to mark up the draft bill the week of June 20. We expect the subcommittee to approve the draft bill with little or no changes. The full Energy and Commerce Committee should complete work on the bill before the August recess. Given the broad bipartisan support for the legislation in the House, we anticipate that the legislation, with minor tweaks, is likely to be approved by the House, setting up a showdown with the Senate after a decade of debate.

With the legislative session rapidly drawing to a close, the prospects for the ADPPA’s passage remain unclear. Intense disagreement remains amongst key constituency groups regarding important aspects of the proposed legislation. Yet, in spite of the differences, a review of the public comments to date regarding the ADPPA reveal one nearly unanimous opinion: the United States needs federal privacy legislation. In light of the fact that most interested parties agree that the U.S. would benefit from federal privacy legislation, Congress has more incentive than ever to reach compromise regarding one of the proposed privacy bills.

Article By Shea Leitch, Jeffrey L. Turner, Kristin L. Bryan, and Kyle R. Fath of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Privacy Tip #335 – Health Care Sector Continues to Be Hit with Ransomware

According to the 2022 State of Ransomware Report issued recently by Sophos, it surveyed 5,600 IT professionals from 31 countries, including professionals in the health care sector. Those professionals in the health care sector shared that 66 percent of them had experienced a ransomware attack in 2021, which was an increase of 69 percent over 2020. This was the largest increase of all sectors surveyed.

If you look at the Office for Civil Rights data breach portal, you will see that a vast majority of breaches reported by health care providers and business associates are related to “Hacking/IT incident.” This confirms that the health care sector continues to be attacked by threat actors seeking to steal protected health information of patients.

If you are a patient who receives a breach notification letter from a health care provider or business associate, the letter will provide guidance on how to protect yourself following a data breach and may offer some protection guidance, including credit monitoring or fraud resolution. Such a letter has been sent to patients to comply with the breach notification requirements of HIPAA and state law. Part of those requirements includes that the patients be provided mitigation steps following the breach to protect themselves from fraud. Avail yourself of these protections in the event your information is compromised. Take the time to sign up for the mitigation offered. It is clear that these attacks will not subside any time soon.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity and media legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

By Law, Everything Is Possible In California

The California Civil Code includes a number of decidedly gnomic provisions.  Section 1597 is one of these.  It purports to answer the question of what is possible:

Everything is deemed possible except that which is impossible in the nature of things.

The problem with the statute is that it doesn’t fully answer the question because to know what is possible, one must know what is impossible and the statute doesn’t provide a definition of impossibility.  In this regard, I am reminded of the following lines from James Joyce’s Ulysses: 

But can those have been possible seeing that they never were?  Or was that only possible which came to pass?

But why define what is possible?  The reason is that Civil Code requires that the object of a contract must, among other things, be possible by the time that it is to be performed.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1596.  When a contract that has a single object that is impossible of performance, the entire contract is void.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1598.

Happy Bloomsday!

Today is Bloomsday.  Joyce chose June 16, 1904 as the day on which most (but not all) of the action in Ulysses takes place.  It is called Bloomsday because the hero of the novel is Leopold Bloom.  It was on June 16, 1904 that Joyce and his future wife, Nora Barnacle, had their first date (and intimate contact).

1C8E1253-FA65-4ED3-B026-ABF4D9098AAC

Finn’s Hotel in Dublin, where Nora worked in 1904

Article By Keith Paul Bishop of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

For more legislative legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

BREAKING: Supreme Court Reverses California Court of Appeal in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Case No. 20-1573) reversing the California Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm the denial of Viking’s motion to compel arbitration Moriana’s “individual” PAGA claim and to dismiss her other PAGA claims.

As previously reported, the question presented in Viking River Cruises involved whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 58 Cal.4th 380 (2014), which invalidates contractual waivers of representative claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that while Iskanian’s prohibition on “wholesale waivers” of PAGA claims is not preempted by the FAA, Iskanian’s rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into “individual” and “non-individual claims” is preempted.

Applying this holding to the parties, the Court held that Viking was entitled to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim.  As for Moriana’s non-individual PAGA claims,  because PAGA itself “provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding,” Moriana lacks “statutory standing” under PAGA to litigate her “non-individual” claims separately in state court.  Accordingly, “the correct course is to dismiss her remaining claims.”

Article By Timothy Kim and Michele J. Beilke of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

June 2022 Legal Industry News and Highlights: Law Firm Hiring, Industry Recognition, and New Diversity and Inclusion Efforts

Happy Summertime from the National Law Review! We hope you are staying safe, healthy, and cool. Read on below for the latest news in the legal industry, including law firm hirings and expansion, legal industry awards and recognition, and diversity, equity, and justice efforts in the field.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP has added Brett R. Valentyn as Senior Counsel to the firm’s Corporate and Transactional Practice Group. Mr. Valentyn, a well-practiced mergers, acquisitions, and corporate attorney, has a wide array of experience in areas such as private equity, corporate governance, and transactional and contractual matters. He has advised clients across industries in buy-side and sell-side transactions for both small-cap and large-cap companies.

“Brett’s successful history in advising clients on transactional matters has him well-positioned to flourish,” said Jason Rogers, Chair of the Corporate & Transactional Practice Group. “Brett’s impressive background in transactional law will only strengthen our already deep bench of talented and business-minded private equity and M&A attorneys. I’m confident Brett will make a wonderful addition to our Corporate & Transactional Practice Group.”

Corporate attorney Eric D. Statman has joined the Toxic Torts practice group at Goldberg Segalla. A 20-year veteran of complex commercial litigation, Mr. Statman is poised to continue his environmental, product liability, and mass tort practice out of the firm’s Manhattan office.

Previously, Mr. Statman has aided clients across a variety of industries, resolving major disputes with minimum impact to corporations through mediation or litigation, as well as negotiating a large number of group settlements. Notably, he has represented asbestos defendants as local and national counsel, helping to develop strategies to minimize exposure.

Michael J. Ligorano has rejoined Norris McLaughlin’s Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use Group and Immigration Practice Group after nine years as the Diocese of Metuchen’s General Counsel. Ligorano is an established New Jersey land use and immigration practitioner with experience evaluating undeveloped land, as well as acquiring, developing, and financing municipal projects around the state. In addition to city planning, Ligorano has served as a legal resource for multinational businesses who wish to enter the United States, assisting in the navigation of the US immigration process. He is the former supervising attorney for the Diocese of Metuchen Catholic Charities Immigration Program, and a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“Michael has a deep understanding of our firm and of the local landscape. He is not only one of the state’s foremost land use and commercial real estate attorneys, but as an experienced immigration counsel will help make ours arguably the best immigration practice in the region,” said David C. Roberts, Chair of Norris McLaughlin. “We are pleased to have Michael at the firm and look forward to his leadership and cross-practice collaboration.”

Five partners and eight associates have joined the Chicago office of the MG+M The Law Firm. The Asbestos Litigation Practice welcomes Partners Timothy Krippner, Michael Cantieri, Christopher Triska, William Irwin, and Daniel Powell, as well as Associates Alex Blair, Elizabeth Grande, Aerial Henderson, Dragana Kovacevic, Cindy Medina-Cervantes, Emily Sample, and Andrea Walsh. The new members bring with them decades of combined high-stakes complex commercial and liability defense experience.

“MG+M enthusiastically welcomes this exceptional team of professionals to our firm,” commented MG+M Chairperson and Partner John B. Manning. “We have collaborated with this group of lawyers for years and look forward to their enhancement of our brand as a go-to firm for high-stakes litigation matters in Illinois, the Midwest and nationally.”

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

The Environmental Practice Group at Greenberg Traurig, LLP has been recognized in the Legal 500 United States 2022 Guide. 31 attorneys across 12 offices in the US were included in the list, highlighting the firm’s expertise in areas such as environmental regulation, environmental litigation, energy regulation, mass torts, and Native American law.

Of particular note, shareholder David B. Weinstein was recognized in the U.S. Guide as a Leading Lawyer in the category of Dispute Resolution > Product Liability, Mass Tort, and Class Action – Defense: Toxic Tort. Likewise, shareholder Troy A. Eid was recognized as a Leading Lawyer for Industry Focus > Native American Law.

Canadian law firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP was recognized six times at the 2022 Benchmark Canada Awards, including three separate “Firm of the Year” Awards. Specifically, the firm was named the Competition Litigation Firm of the Year for the first time, the White Collar Crime/Enforcement Firm of the Year for the third consecutive year, and the Arbitration Firm of the Year for the fifth consecutive year.

In addition, Blakes was granted the Impact Case of the Year award for work on Sherman Estate v. Donovan, led by partner Iris Fischer. Partners Michael Barrack and Melanie Baird also received the Hall of Fame Award and the IP Litigator of the Year award, respectively.

Thomson Reuters has named six Stubbs Alderton & Markiles attorneys as “Rising Stars” on the Southern California Super Lawyers list. The members of the firm that have been selected are listed here:

Attorneys selected for the Super Lawyers list demonstrate a high degree of personal and professional achievement, as well as a significant level of peer recognition. The list selects only 2.5 percent of under-40 lawyers in the Southern California area for the “Rising Stars” designation, making decisions based on peer nomination, independent research, and peer evaluation.

Two Womble Bond Dickinson (US) attorneys have been ranked in the 2022 edition of Chambers USA. Cristin Cowles, Ph.D., an experienced patent prosecution and patent lifecycle management attorney, has been ranked in Intellectual Property. Jed Nosal, a practiced state regulatory oversight, enforcement, and compliance attorney, has been ranked in Energy & Natural Resources.

Additionally, the firm’s Massachusetts-based Energy & Natural Resources practice has been recognized by Chambers USA as an industry leader. In total, 60 Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys and 22 state-level practice areas have been recognized in the 2022 edition of Chambers USA.

Diversity, Equity, and Justice Efforts

Chris Slaughter, CEO of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, affirmed the firm’s commitment to diversity and inclusion by taking the Leaders at the Front Initiative Pledge with the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity. Nationally recognized for its strengths in energy law, business, labor and employment, and litigation, Steptoe & Johnson has a longstanding commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with efforts such as the D Cubed Program, the Standing Diversity & Inclusion Committee, and ongoing diversity recruitment and retention efforts.

The Leaders at the Front Initiative is a movement intended to forefront the conversation about diversity and inclusion for major organizations and law firms. It requires an organization to act on their pledge by creating an action plan that turns their words into measurable actions, with the end goal of helping a new diverse generation of attorneys obtain positions of leadership and in return create a national legal industry that is diverse and inclusive.

Three Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP attorneys have been recognized by the Virginia Access to Justice Commission for their outstanding pro bono services. Lee-Ann C. Brown, an associate at the firm, has been named the 2020-2021 Pro Bono Service Champion, an honor reserved for top Virginia attorneys reporting the highest number of pro bono hours. Douglas L. Patin and Henry C. Su have likewise been named 2020-2021 Pro Bono Service Honor Roll members for contributing over 40 hours of pro bono service.

The Virginia Access to Justice Commission was established in 2013 by the state’s Supreme Court to promote equal access to justice, with a particular emphasis on the civil needs of Virginia residents. The bar’s participation in pro bono service has since become a priority for the Commission, connecting judges, lawyers, and legal aid and social services to assist in making the courts more accessible for all.

“These attorneys have made tremendous strides in providing pro bono service and working to promote access to justice in the Virginia community, and we are proud of their significant contributions,” said Bradley Pro Bono Counsel Tiffany M. Graves.

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has announced the establishment of the HuntonAK Pathfinders Scholarship Program, a 10-week, paid Summer Clerkship for outstanding first-generation 2L law students. Stemming from the winning submission at the firm’s annual “Hackathon,” a brain-storming competition for enhancing diversity and inclusion in the legal industry, the scholarship seeks to attract students to the private practice of law while providing valuable work and mentorship experiences at the firm.

“Hunton Andrews Kurth is committed to making our profession more accessible to talented law students who have already demonstrated great determination by climbing the first rung of the educational mobility ladder,” said managing partner Wally Martinez. “This scholarship, strictly for first-generation students, is one of the first of its kind and we are honored to help lead the way with this effort.”

Article By Chandler Ford and Crissonna Tennison of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction in FLSA Collective Actions

On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear petitions seeking review of whether federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. The petitions sought review of rulings on the issue by the First and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals in Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc. and Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., respectively. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision declining to hear the petitions, there remains a circuit split as to whether the Court’s 2017 ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court applies to FLSA collective actions, and employers with nationwide footprints remain subject to uncertainty depending on jurisdiction.

To date, only the First, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have ruled on the issue. On August 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit was the first to address the issue in Canaday. There, the Court held that federal courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join FLSA collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. Just one day later, on August 18, 2021, the Eighth Circuit came to the same conclusion in Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC.

On January 13, 2022, in Waters, the First Circuit held to the contrary, concluding that federal courts do have personal jurisdiction over claims asserted by nonresident opt-in plaintiffs.

The Significance of Bristol-Myers

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers provides the basis for the current circuit split. Bristol-Myers involved a mass tort action under state law for alleged defects in a blood-thinning drug, Plavix, which the company manufactured. Residents and nonresidents of California sued Bristol-Myers in California state court, alleging injuries related to the drug. The nonresident plaintiffs claimed no relationship with the forum state, nor did they purchase Plavix in California or suffer any harm from it in California. The Supreme Court reasoned that any similarity between the resident and nonresident plaintiffs’ claims was an “insufficient basis” to exercise specific jurisdiction. Unless nonresident plaintiffs could demonstrate that their claims arose out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, personal jurisdiction over the company did not exist, no matter “the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.”

In ruling that the California state court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of the nonresident plaintiffs, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its holding might ultimately generate more litigation in the form of separate actions by nonresident plaintiffs in their respective states. But the Supreme Court also noted that all plaintiffs to the action could have brought a mass tort action against Bristol-Myers in New York (the company’s headquarters) or Delaware (its place of incorporation) because courts in those states would have had general personal jurisdiction over the company. Instead, the California state court could exercise only specific personal jurisdiction over the company based on its activities in the state. Notably, Bristol-Myers was limited to Rule 23 class actions, leaving lower courts to determine whether its holding applied to FLSA collective actions, which differ procedurally.

The Circuit Split

In Canaday, the Sixth Circuit reiterated the basic tenet that, pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the question of whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the defendant’s contacts with the state in which the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Because Anthem is both incorporated and headquartered in Indiana and not otherwise “at home” in the state of Tennessee, the district court in Tennessee lacked general jurisdiction over Anthem as a defendant. At issue was whether the district court in Tennessee had specific personal jurisdiction over Anthem, and thus, whether there was a claim-specific and Anthem-specific relationship between the nonresidents’ FLSA claims and the state of Tennessee.

Applying Bristol-Myers, the Sixth Circuit held that there was not. The court found that the nonresident plaintiffs did not bring claims arising out of or relating to Anthem’s conduct in Tennessee, because Anthem neither employed nor paid the nonresident plaintiffs within the state. The Sixth Circuit went on the explain that adherence to this approach should not change the way FLSA collective actions are filed, because plaintiffs traditionally file their actions where courts have general jurisdiction, or where the conduct occurred. Of note, Sixth Circuit Judge Bernice Donald dissented in Canaday, contending that Bristol-Myers does not apply to FLSA collective actions because the Supreme Court in that case addressed only the limitations of state courts, not federal courts, in their exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.

In Waters, the First Circuit largely followed the reasoning in Judge Donald’s dissent, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb “rest[ed] on Fourteenth Amendment constitutional limits on state courts exercising jurisdiction over state-law claims” and thus did not control whether a federal court could exercise jurisdiction over federal claims asserted by nonresident plaintiffs. The First Circuit also observed that the plain language of Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely concerns the service of summonses and does not “constrain[] a federal court’s power to act once a summons has been properly served, and personal jurisdiction has been established.”

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the petitions means that employers with nationwide footprints continue to live with potentially inconsistent rulings on the question of whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear claims of out-of-state workers when the defendant is neither headquartered nor incorporated in the state. Canaday and Vallone stand to significantly limit the size and geographic scope of FLSA collective actions in the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, absent a district court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant, while Waters permits nationwide jurisdiction in the First Circuit. For now, at least, multistate employers face continued uncertainty on the issue until courts of appeals in the remaining circuits weigh in.

Article By Maggie (Hanrahan) Santen, Monica Lacks, and Samuel H. Ottinger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Beyond Meat Sued Over Protein Content Claims

  • A proposed consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Beyond Meat, Inc. on June 10, alleging that the plant-based meat manufacturer embellished the amount of protein contained in its line of plant-based sausages, breakfast patties, meatballs, ground beef, and chicken products.

  • In the complaint, plaintiff Mary Yoon alleges that Beyond Meat falsely labels and advertises its products as providing “equal or superior protein” to animal-derived meat. Her claim is based on the fact that “two different U.S. laboratories have independently and separately conducted testing on a wide range of Beyond Meat products. The test results were consistent with each other: the results of both tests show that Beyond Meat products contain significantly less protein than what is stated on the product packaging.”

  • Plaintiff Yoon alleges that Beyond Meat’s quantitative declaration of protein and percent Daily Value (%DV) are false and misleading because the quantitative amount was calculated using the nitrogen method. According to the complaint, “the nitrogen method is not the most accurate way to describe protein content” and that “[b]y law, Beyond Meat is required to use the PDCAAS calculation for the products rather than some other less-sophisticated method.”

  • In opposition to plaintiff Yoon’s claims, 21 CFR 101.9(c)(7) specifically provides for two different methods to determine protein values, including the nitrogen method. The FDA recently issued a clarifying Q&A supporting the use of either method to calculate protein content (i.e., nitrogen or PDCAAS), but noted that manufacturers are still obligated to include a %DV when protein claims are made and that %DV should be adjusted for protein quality.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

SCOTUS Significantly Narrows Scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for International Arbitrations

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al., v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401, holds that U.S. federal courts cannot order discovery in aid of international commercial arbitrations or investor-state arbitrations.  In a unanimous decision, the Court reasoned that a “foreign tribunal,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, “is best understood as an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority” rather than a private body that is merely located in another country.  Because the private arbitral tribunal in the ZF Automotive case did not exercise governmental authority, the Supreme Court denied discovery in aid of the proceeding under Section 1782.

The decision resolves a circuit split over whether private commercial arbitration panels should be considered “foreign or international tribunals” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, and thus whether U.S. discovery should be allowed in such private commercial arbitrations.  Section 1782 authorizes a district court to order the production of evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.”  The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have previously held that international commercial arbitrations are foreign tribunals under the statute, while the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have held that they are not.  The availability of discovery under Section 1782 is a key issue for the international arbitration community because the scope of discovery allowed under Section 1782 is generally broader than any discovery allowed under institutional arbitral rules or under foreign arbitration laws.

In reaching its decision, the Court found that the word “tribunal” carries a distinctively governmental flavor.  A prior version of Section 1782 covered only “judicial proceeding[s]” in any court in a foreign country, however, Congress later expanded the legislation’s scope to cover proceedings in a “foreign or international tribunal.”  The Court found that while this change broadens the understanding of “tribunal” to include tribunals that are not formal courts, the term is still best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority.  Under the decision, a “foreign tribunal” is a tribunal belonging to a foreign nation while an “international tribunal” is best understood as one that involves two or more nations imbued with governmental authority.  Location of the tribunal or the nature of the parties to the dispute are not determinative in this interpretation.

The Court also noted that extending Section 1782 discovery to cover international arbitrations would conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act, which governs domestic arbitrations.  Thus, interpreting Section 1782 as applying to international arbitration would create a “notable mismatch between foreign and domestic arbitration.”

The Court’s decision came in a consolidated case arising out of appeals in the Sixth and Second Circuits.  The first case involves a dispute between Luxshare, a Hong Kong company and ZF Automotive US Inc., a Michigan-based company, over an allegedly fraudulent sales transaction.  The agreement between the parties provided that all disputes would be resolved by an arbitral panel under the Arbitration Rules of the German Arbitration Institute (DIS).  In preparation for bringing an arbitration, Luxshare filed an ex parte petition under Section 1782 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan seeking information from ZF Automotive and its officers.  The district court granted the petition and ZF Automotive moved to quash, arguing that a panel formed under the auspices of the DIS was not a “foreign or international tribunal” under Section 1782.  The district court denied the motion and the Sixth Circuit denied a stay.

The second case involves AB bankas SNORAS, a Lithuanian bank which was nationalized by Lithuanian authorities.  The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, a Russian corporation, commenced an ad hoc arbitration proceeding against Lithuania under a bilateral investment treaty that the country entered with Russia.  The Fund filed a petition under Section 1782 in the district court seeking information from AlixPartners, LLP, a New York-based consulting firm, and one of its officers.  AlixPartners challenged the petition, arguing that the ad hoc panel was also not a “foreign or international tribunal” under Section 1782.  The district court rejected that argument in a decision that was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

The Court’s decision is likely to spark much discussion in the international arbitration community.  There will likely be a significant impact on current and future international arbitrations, with parties having to consider their strategies for discovery in light of the unavailability of a critical information-gathering tool.  On the other hand, for better and for worse, this decision will further streamline the international arbitration process, as many arbitral proceedings will not be delayed by related litigation over discovery in U.S. courts.

Article By Travis A. Gonyou of Binder & Schwartz

For more arbitration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Binder & Schwartz LLP. All Rights Reserved